Before
the court is a civil rights complaint [doc. 7] filed pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by plaintiff Ray D. Brister, who is
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this matter. Brister is a pretrial detainee and is currently
incarcerated at Concordia Parish Correctional Facility
(“CPCF”) in Ferriday, Louisiana. See
doc. 7, p. 2. However, his complaint relates to events that
occurred while he was making an appearance at the Jefferson
Davis Parish Courthouse in Jennings, Louisiana. Docs. 1, 7.

I.

Background

Brister
states that, while being held in a courtroom in Jefferson
Davis Parish on February 10, 2017, with other inmates, he got
up to throw away some trash. Doc. 7, p. 3. On returning to
his seat, he claims, he tripped over his leg shackles, pushed
off of another inmate to break his fall, then spun around and
hit his back on a bench before falling to the floor.
Id. At the direction of Warden Locke, Officer Aldo
Robinson came to check him out and did not believe
Brister's claims that he was in too much pain to get up
from the floor. Id. at 5. Robinson, Brister stated,
then jerked him off the floor, “causing me to scream
and holler even more than I already was.” Id.
When the EMTs arrived, Brister claims that they put a neck
brace on him and said that he should not have been moved
without one. Id. He also asserts that they told him
his blood pressure was high, and that they had placed him on
a gurney to take him to the hospital but that Robinson told
the EMTs that the parish was going to refuse medical
attention because “he felt like nothing was wrong with
me and that I was only trying to get out of jail free
[because] I was in jail for [a] murder
charge.”[1]Id. He alleges that Robinson
called Locke to the scene and removed his neck brace, and
that Robinson and Locke pulled him off the gurney and told
him he would have to get checked out when he returned to
CPCF. Id. at 5-6. Brister claims that these actions
caused more pain to his lower back and legs. Id.

Brister
alleges that he continues to experience pain and impairment,
even though the doctor at CPCF examined him and stated that
he was just bruised. Id. Accordingly, he asks for
monetary damages and for the Jefferson Davis Sheriff's
Department to be “penalized.” Id. at 4.

II.

Law
& Analysis

A.
Frivolity Review

Brister
has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
in this matter. Accordingly, his complaint is subject to
screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which provides
for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint or any
portion thereof if the court determines that it is frivolous
or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

A
complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law
or fact. Gonzalez v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1019 (5th
Cir. 1998). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted if it is clear the plaintiff cannot
prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would
entitle him to relief. Doe v. Dallas Indep. Sch.
Dist., 153 F.3d 211, 215 (5th Cir. 1998). When
determining whether a complaint is frivolous or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court
must accept plaintiff's allegations as true. Horton
v. Cockrell, 70 F.3d 397, 400 (5th Cir. 1995)
(frivolity); Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d at 1025
(failure to state a claim).

B.
Section 1983

Federal
law provides a cause of action against any person who, under
the color of law, acts to deprive another person of any
right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and
laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thus the
initial question is whether the plaintiff has alleged that
his constitutional rights have been violated. If no
constitutional violation has been alleged, there is no
cognizable claim that would entitle plaintiff to relief. In
order to hold the defendants liable, a plaintiff must allege
facts to show (1) that a constitutional right has been
violated and (2) that the conduct ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.